Praise be to the Board
PRE-DEPOSIT TO BE REFUNDED WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN ASSESSEE'S FAVOUR
EVERY appellant in Central Excise or Customs matters is made to pre-deposit the duty or at least a major part of it before his appeal is admitted. And it is a known fact that in the field, orders are passed demanding huge amounts of money which ultimately need not be paid at all. But the appellate authorities usually do not have the time to go into the details of the whole case at the stage of stay hearing and usually admit the appeal with a direction to pre-deposit a part of the duty demanded. And the assessee has no real choice. The officers show realisation of these deposits as arrears recovery and some more statistical lies are built up.
But what really concerns the trade is that the department does not show a fraction of the concern in returning the pre deposit as they do in collecting it when the order under appeal is quashed or remanded. Often the assessees have to approach the Tribunal and other appellate authorities to get back their deposits illegally held by the department. And the Tribunal and courts have been critical of the Government holding up these deposits illegally and had even ordered interest on the deposit not returned.
In this situation, the recent circular of the Board comes as a welcome relief to the harried assessee who had pre-deposited on the basis of a patently bad order and had obtained relief from a higher forum.
The Board circular reiterates that such pre-deposit must be returned within 3 months from the date of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal/Court or other Final Authority unless there is a stay on the order of the Final Authority/CESTAT/Court, by a superior Court.
The circular does not mention the Commissioner (Appeals) and the overzealous officers in the field are sure to deny the refund in cases of orders passed by Commissioners (Appeals). To that extent a further clarification has to be issued urgently.
The circular goes on to state that disciplinary action will be initiated against the concerned defaulting officers. All concerned are requested to note that default will entail an interest liability, if such liability accrues by reason of any orders of the CESTAT/Court, such orders will have to be complied with and it may be recoverable from the concerned officers.
The Board also wants the Commissioners to ensure that these instructions are implemented through a monitoring mechanism and the copies of the instructions issued to be endorsed to the Board.
When the going is good, nothing can stop the Board. It has advised the commissioners to withdraw pending cases in high courts in similar matters and to pay interest promptly in all cases where the courts/tribunal had ordered payment of interest.
This is the kind of instructions that one expects the Board to issue. Though following the Board instructions is not a very favourite pastime in the field, DDT is sure that these instructions will be followed as there is the threat of disciplinary action and recovery.
The Board deserves all praise for this apt circular. Praise be to the Board. See Circular No.